MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956264009 · doi:10.1061/9780784482292.507

A Bilevel Programming Framework for Determining the Optimal Incentive-Based Traffic Demand Management Strategy

2019· article· en· W2956264009 on OpenAlexaff
Jiyan Wu, Ye Tian, Jian Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueCICTP 2019 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveBilevel optimizationConstraint (computer-aided design)Budget constraintComputer scienceOperations researchDemand managementSet (abstract data type)Linear programmingVariable (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationMicroeconomicsEconomicsOptimization problemEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incentive-based traffic demand management (IBTDM) is a cost-effective alternative to increasing capacities and conventional traffic demand management strategies. This paper focuses on IBTDM strategy to provide incentives for commuting drivers’ departure time shifts to balance temporal distribution of demand by proposing a bilevel programming framework to obtain optimal IBTDM strategy and to evaluate IBTDM strategy’s impact on commuters’ departure time choice behavior. In the upper-level, the objective function is to minimize total travel time with the total monetary compensation constraint by a pre-set budget, while decision variables are time-varying incentives for commuters according to their departure times. The optimal time-varying incentive profile is then passed on to the lower-level, within which the decision variable is personal departure time choice. The result indicates that such a time-varying linear incentive profile that reaches the highest at the “shoulders” of peak period while remains lowest during the most peak period achieves superior performance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCICTP 2019Same topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207